Friday, May 26, 2006

CD-8 Ol’ Anonymouse Squeaks Again

This time by mail, which is peachy since it cost “Real Democrats for Real Democrats” 39 cents a pop. The best overview of what this is all about is to be had at Tedski’s, “Rum, Romanism and Rebellion.” Stick around and read the comments, too.

Anyway, it looks like either a Weiss or Latas supporter is pretty anxious about the depth and breadth of Giffords’ support. As annoying as these squeaking annonymice can be it’s good to remember that you don’t find mice in an empty cupboard, and Giffords’ political cupboard is chock-a-block.

There are some fairly serious legal and political issues revolving around this otherwise silly mailing. Is “Real Democrats for Real Democrats” a PAC, even if it is only a PAC of one? If it is a PAC is it not now in violation of federal election law, which requires registration and identification?

The rumor gnomes are telling me there is a suspect, but no way to anchor those suspicions down…yet. Save the envelopes, gang, maybe ol’ annonymouse licked the flaps. DNA testing anyone?

11 comments:

What amuses me most about annonymouse is that he/she professes to perfect knowledge of facts not in evidence and clairvoyant knowledge of future events. Also exhibited is an almost Rove-like disregard for context! Annonymouse’s cheap shot, bomb-throwing assertions are devoid of any intellectual merit. As has been said over and over again in this and other Blogs, annonymice should focus their efforts on convincing ‘real Democrats’ (whatever that means?) that their candidate of choice would best serve collective Democratic interests instead of incessantly babbling on about conspiracy theories concerning Gabby.

Sometimes a post leaves me questioning whether or not to respond. This last one, Fedup, is one of them.

Art can certainly defend himself if he thinks the "low blow" is worth an answer. I am compelled to at least point out that it is reasonable to postulate that a hit piece on Giffords may have come from a supporter of one of her opponents.

That is another planet from alleging that the candidates or their campaigns were involved. Any nutcase could attend a speech, get motivated, and do something ridiculous without the slightest awareness of the candidate.

I'm inclined to consider thoughts like Michael's at Blog for AZ, i.e. that this could have come from R's. That they just targeted PC's is interesting. How do you know Huffman supporters didn't do it?

Also, you contradict yourself by alleging democratic opponents would not do it (creates sympathy and helps Giffords) but that R's would not do it (hurts Giffords and they want her to prevail). Well?

By the way, I don't buy for a second that R's prefer to face Giffords.

The several attempts to marginalize anyone who does not fall into lockstep with the Gabriellites are just pathetic. Has it occurred to Art (and other superficial thinkers) that there may be voters in CD8 who just do not want her to represent us in Congress? I would certainly prefer someone from the middle class. We have enough millionaires in Congress already.

Anyone who feels that we need to keep our troops in Iraq "....as long as they are needed..." is not going to get my support. I did not need to take a poll to figure out that our troops were never needed there in the first place, and are extremely counterproductive at this late date. We have now been in Iraq longer than we were in WWII. Let me repeat that for some of the slower people: We have now been in Iraq longer than we were in WWII. If Gabby ever realizes that the war is criminal, then I will think about voting for her.

To suggest that Anonymouse is doing something criminal (assuming he/she paid for the paper & stamps) is pretty ludicrous. To suggest that Jeff or Patty must be behind this "crime" is equally luicrous. Lambasting the opposition for the crime without ever telling what was in the "criminal" letter sounds pretty Republican to me. Hmmm.... Is Karl Rove working this campaign?

Perhaps because she's the front runner, perhaps because she has a record, but for whatever reason, let's face it, the CD8 conversation has been about Gabrielle Giffords.

Over at kos a real exchange is taking place, likely started by Weiss supporters (but bizarre theories exist about R's entering this picture and posing as, well...whoever they choose), and the headline is not "Patty for Congress!!"

The headline is "Gabrielle Giffords must be stopped!!"

If this election is framed in the context of embracing or stopping Gabrielle Giffords, she will win.

I am supporting Jeff Latas because he has a good deal more experience than your candidate. Not only that, but Jeff has spent more time in D.C. than any of the candidates, and has a point-of-view that I understand.

The real divergence, as I see it, is not male/female, or even left/right. It is corporate vs non-corporate. I think the corporations are more than adequately represented in Congress now. I would like someone to represent me and people like me, and who has hopefully at least sometime in their life,had some experience in paying $1200 worth of bills on a $1000 paycheck.

I would never vote for (or against) someone simply because of their sex (or sexual orientation), or because they were Jewish (or not), or because the Teamsters leadership says I should. However, these are often the superficial reasons given for supporting the frontrunner. Often, I hear things like "...yeah, I know she is pretty middle of the road, but we can't take a chance on ______ (fill in the blank), because if we try to move too far to the left the Republicans will win." This is the sort of argument that leads to candidates who "flip-flop" and do wind up losing.

I support Jeff Latas because he takes well thought-out and principled stands, and has the courage and integrity to fight for them. We don't need someone to go to Washington to "reach across the aisle", we need Democrats to stand in opposition to fascism.

You know, when the govt. starts a war (a perpetual war) and hires private enterprise (e.g. Haliburton) to support that war, and justifies it with religious dogma, this is fascism. I used to think people who used the term were left wing wackos, but in fact- what we have today (or are moving towards) is fascism. I do not compromise with fascists, and no one who represents me will, if I have anything to do with it.